Was Romney pro-life before he was kinda sorta pro-choice before he was pro-life?

posted at 8:33 pm on February 13, 2012 by Allahpundit

Thanks to an NYT story this weekend, this bit of old news has been resurrected, showcased yesterday in a Peter Robinson post at Ricochet and then picked up by Rush Limbaugh this afternoon. The key quote is six years old and appeared in a story in National Review so it’s been on the right’s radar since well before Romney’s first presidential run. And yet, much like the mandate, somehow he didn’t get much grief over it last time when he was running as the conservative in the race.

Mr. Romney’s transformation on abortion is, in some respects, the story of a man who entered public life in a state whose politics did not match his own. [Story of his life. -- AP] People close to Mr. Romney say they have no doubt that he opposes terminating a pregnancy. Critics and even some supporters say there is also little question that he did what he had to do to get elected as governor.

“He was always uncomfortable on the issue, but he was penned in by having run as a pro-choice candidate in 1994 and by the political realities of Massachusetts in 2002,” said Rob Gray, a senior adviser to Mr. Romney’s campaign for governor. “It was made clear to him by advisers early on in his gubernatorial race that he had to be pro-choice, and he could not show any hesitation.”…

In 2002, as a candidate for governor, Mr. Romney filled out a questionnaire for Planned Parenthood declaring that he supported “the substance” of the Supreme Court’s 1973 landmark abortion rights decision, Roe v. Wade. Six weeks before he was elected, he sat for an hourlong interview with state officials of the advocacy group now known as Naral Pro-Choice America…

By 2005, with Mr. Romney eyeing a possible presidential bid, he began to distance himself from his abortion rights platform. “My political philosophy is pro-life,” he told National Review, a conservative magazine, in an article that June. That same article quoted his top strategist at the time, Mike Murphy, as saying Mr. Romney had been “a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly.”

I get the sense sometimes from Romney’s critics that they think he was pro-choice his whole life and then cynically flipped to pro-life in 2005 once he had decided to run for president. Nuh uh. Revisit this Times piece from last October describing his days as a Mormon leader in Boston in the 1980s and 1990s. Allegedly he once advised a woman against having an abortion even though her doctors had recommended it after discovering a dangerous blood clot. Assuming that’s true, he obviously took life in the womb very, very seriously. But … that only makes his “pro-choice friendly” attitude as governor worse, doesn’t it? Conservatives can, I think, happily accept former pro-choicers who’ve had a moral awakening about abortion. People do change their minds. I think they’d also tolerate (but not embrace) someone whom they suspected of being secretly pro-choice so long as he/she is committed to governing as pro-life. Romney falls into that category for many of his critics, I suspect. Even if you think he’s telling you what you want to hear on this issue, it’s inconceivable to me that he’d flip on the issue once in office. The betrayal would be cataclysmic, and he knows it. He’d be true blue pro-life to preserve his political viability, if nothing else.

But what about someone who’s been secretly pro-life all along yet who … tolerated abortion in the name of getting elected? Where does that person fall on the moral spectrum? This isn’t any ordinary issue that can be triangulated as necessary. To devout pro-lifers like Huckabee, abortion is a moral evil on the order of slavery. You can’t be “slavery-friendly” or “personally anti-slavery but politically pro-choice.” If you believe the practice is irredeemably, grievously wrong, you’re obliged morally to try to change the policy that enables it. So I wonder: Would it be better if Mitt had briefly but sincerely become pro-choice — or “pro-choice friendly” — while running in Massachusetts and then flipped, or if he’d never been pro-choice but had been willing to look the other way at abortion in the interest of his own political viability? It’s the difference between losing your moral bearings and selling them out. Which is worse?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Due to a tubal pregnancy at 28, I lost my ability to have children. Does that mean that I am damned for enjoying sex past that time? According to the puritanical supporting Santorum, I am doomed for having any sex that is not for procreation purposes.

Pal2Pal on February 13, 2012 at 11:17 PM

With all due respect and lament for the trouble you’ve been through, that’s a boatload of misinformed bullsh1t you just dropped there.

I know there are a handful of folks who probably believe that, but don’t be ridiculous and try to pretend or convince anyone else that anything resembling a significant portion of the religious constituency out here would hold to that position. Unfortunately you sound dangerously close to the ‘Christians are the Taliban froth froth’ nutters that frequent the leftie fever swamps. Don’t go there, you really don’t want to come off as that deranged.

Despite what so-cons really believe or want, abortion rights are not going to be going away…..ever. Best you can hope for is to defund groups like Planned Parenthood.

Vyce on February 13, 2012 at 11:50 PM

You’d be wrong.. The science is on our side. The more science progresses the more people will be unable to avoid that it is another life being taken. Roe v. Wade ruled that the fetus could not be put in front of the mother prior to viability. When they ruled that it was weeks higher than it was now. The goal post keeps changing with scientific progression. Pretty soon abortion proponents won’t have anywhere to hide with their rhetoric.

You’ll have to forgive us aholes who aren’t in a hurry to support an overtly manipulative lying sack of excrement politician who will say anything to get elected. You may like that kind of thing, which might cause one to wonder why you don’t like Obama, but many of the rest of us would actually prefer someone who has some principles and *isn’t* willing to sell them all and openly proclaim to be something he isn’t for the sake of getting elected.

Midas on February 13, 2012 at 11:52 PM

Why do True Conservatives look to an “overtly manipulative lying sack of excrement politician who will say anything to get elected” person like Reagan as the standard bearer of Conservatism?

Ronald Reagan had a similar shift in views on the abortion issue, according to a Los Angeles Times article headlined “Romney isn’t the first to flip on abortion.”

In 1967, then-California Gov. Reagan signed a liberal abortion law legalizing the procedure in cases where a woman’s mental as well as physical health was at risk.

The number of abortions in California soared after the bill was passed, and Reagan came to regret singing it, the Times reported. By the time he ran for president in 1980, Reagan had declared his support for a constitutional amendment prohibiting all abortions except to save the life of a woman.

Seriously, it’s amazing the level to which my fellow ‘conservatives’ will twist themselves into pretzels in a desperate attempt to believe any old damn thing Romney tells them he’s really serious about –

It is amazing to me how conservatives will believe anything democrats and lowlifes tell you about Romney, contrary to any proof of same.

Romney never has to tell you anything, you can look at HIS RECORD. Show me any time he made policy that advanced the taking of life.

Grow up. Do your own research. Romney’s record is solid if you look at HIS RECORD.

Wow, I do believe you have the cut and paste – including formatting – exactly the way the other guy did. That’s remarkable coming from different folks…

Its you who are avoiding the question – you can try to throw Reagan under the bus all you want; you may recall that he’s neither living nor running for office.

Try to stay focused on the question at hand; “the other guy” that posted the identical and identically formatted distraction re: Reagan openly said he acknowledged that Romney must’ve been lying back in his Mass days in order to get elected (eg: otherwise there’d be no elected Republicans in Mass)… so the question isn’t even like that Reagan distraction where it clearly shows that Reagan realized he’d made a mistake and changed his mind and his efforts. You guys, on the other hand, ADMIT that you KNOW Romney is a lying sack of politically expedient crap – but you seem to be alright with that.

I find that… odd.

So, you can introduce the Reagan apple to Romney orange conversation all you want, but its *you* who are attempting to distract from the true question…

literally guffawed at my radio this morning; local talkshow guy Mark Davis (subs for Rush fairly frequently) actually said he believes Romney when Romney says that he’s now pro-life. And that even though Romney was pro-mandate at the state level, he’s not pro-mandate at the federal level.

I laughed out loud and shouted, “all evidence to the contrary, of course.”

Seriously, it’s amazing the level to which my fellow ‘conservatives’ will twist themselves into pretzels in a desperate attempt to believe any old damn thing Romney tells them he’s really serious about – you know, this time. I mean, we all know he said the precise and exact opposite multiple times before, but *this* time it’s true. No really.

Wow, I do believe you have the cut and paste – including formatting – exactly the way the other guy did. That’s remarkable coming from different folks…

Its you who are avoiding the question – you can try to throw Reagan under the bus all you want; you may recall that he’s neither living nor running for office.

Try to stay focused on the question at hand; “the other guy” that posted the identical and identically formatted distraction re: Reagan openly said he acknowledged that Romney must’ve been lying back in his Mass days in order to get elected (eg: otherwise there’d be no elected Republicans in Mass)… so the question isn’t even like that Reagan distraction where it clearly shows that Reagan realized he’d made a mistake and changed his mind and his efforts. You guys, on the other hand, ADMIT that you KNOW Romney is a lying sack of politically expedient crap – but you seem to be alright with that.

I find that… odd.

So, you can introduce the Reagan apple to Romney orange conversation all you want, but its *you* who are attempting to distract from the true question…

Midas on February 14, 2012 at 12:07 AM

You could have just typed “I apologize for being an ill informed, hypocritical jackass” and saved yourself so much time and effort.

Grow up. Do your own research. Romney’s record is solid if you look at HIS RECORD.

Pal2Pal on February 14, 2012 at 12:03 AM

I should also ignore Romney supporters like you who admit Romney lied and pretended to be something he wasn’t just to get elected Governor then, I suppose…

But ok, I’ll indulge you – let’s look at Romney’s record on “the taking of life” as you put it…
I could post MULTIPLE links, but let’s just let you Google that yourself – try “romney abortion record” and see what you come up with, hmmm?

- created RomneyCare which is terribly similar to ObamaCare but even worse for it openly funds abortion
- put Planned Parenthood on the so-called “independent” board he created that offers $50 co-pay abortions
- thereby instituted tax-funded abortion on demand two years after his orchestrated “pro-life” conversion
- as late as summer 2011 continues to defend aborting tens of thousands of kids (denying their God-given right to life)
- supported destructive embryonic research after his false 2004 pro-life conversion
- put a pro-abortion Democratic judge on the bench after Romney had claimed a pro-life conversion
- fabricates a claim that a court ordered him to institute same-sex marriage, a travesty he committed did on his own
- single-handedly instituted same-sex marriage and later fabricated a claim that a court ordered him to do so
- bragged that he would continue to defend abortion “rights” after he claimed a pro-life conversion
- denies responsibility for the 10-member board that funds abortion even though his executive branch filled 7 seats
- pro-choice in ’94; pro-life in ’01; choice ’02; pro-life ’04; choice ’05; life in ’06; then funded abortion in ’06

Good grief that’s pathetic. LOL, wow – seriously, no wonder Romney’s losing to Santorum at this point if you’re evidence of what passes for a supporter nowadays. Romney ain’t near getting his money’s worth. With folk like you on the team, Ron Paul will be kicking Romney’s lying ass to the curb in another few weeks.

I should also ignore Romney supporters like you who admit Romney lied and pretended to be something he wasn’t just to get elected Governor then, I suppose…

I never said any such thing. I do not believe Romney lied or that he is a liar.

All your bullet points are from Gingrich’s ad that doesn’t pass the smell test and according to fact checks says sent the baloney meter off the scale.

You do realize, I hope, that Romney vetoed most of the things you say he instituted. Check the real facts. Newt Gingrich is the liar here and you support the liar. For instance, Romney has never ever supported same sex marriage, ever. Or this one “- supported destructive embryonic research after his false 2004 pro-life conversion” … he vetoed this and fought hard against it.

I guess it depends, but gay marriage supporters seem to prefer the idea that Obama is secretly on their side rather than taking him at his word. And I suppose they have one point in that, at least it means he’s truly on their side, meaning when electability is no longer an issue, they’re likely to be satisfied with his “evolution” on the issue.

If he was pro-life, then pro-choice and then pro-life, he is not fit for office.

I can see you changing your mind either way and explain it but this just shows that he’ll do anything and say anything to get elected. How can you trust someone who is willing to let children die for his election?

Vince on February 13, 2012 at 8:59 PM

“Gov. Mitt Romney abruptly ordered his administration to reverse course yesterday and require Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception medication to rape victims. In a turnaround that foes derided as politically motivated, Romney directed his Department of Public Health to scrap rules that exempted the Catholic institutions from a new law governing the medicine.”
(Kimberly Atkins, “Romney Flip Nixes Hospital Exception On Post-Rape Drug,” Boston Herald, 12/9/05)

h/t INC on February 5, 2012 at 9:36 PM

When Republican presidential candidates were asked recently to cite their biggest mistake, Romney replied: “Probably from a political standpoint and a personal standpoint, the greatest mistake was when I first ran for office, being deeply opposed to abortion but saying, ‘I support the current law,’ which was pro-choice and effectively a pro-choice position. That was just wrong.”

The truth is, when Romney ran for office in Massachusetts he went far beyond saying, “I support the current law.”

He begged voters to accept him as an embracer of abortion rights. “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal,” he said. He staked his credentials on his mother, Lenore. He said she ran for the Senate in 1970 on an abortion-rights platform, inspired by the death of her son-in-law’s teenage sister from an illegal abortion. “My mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that,” he said. (“Romney’s honesty problem”, Boston Globe August 9, 2007)

Now what was it bluegill said recently about any man who panders to the “pro-choice” crowd?

Oh yeah.

Oh, and any man who brags about his “pro-choice” stance in order to kiss up to these witches is a wuss and a not a real man.

Oh please AP, just because we have a theocrat as the flavor of the week doesn’t mean Americans give a rip about Romney’s position on abortion. It matters for Santo because he is such an extreme zealot who has declared his intention to restrict women’s rights so severely. For a candidate who doesn’t terrify most voters it is a non-issue.

And here I thought this election was about the economy? Aren’t we faced with millions and millions of out of work fellow citizens and a President that continues to add Trillion dollar budgets to our deficit…when the Dems screamed about Bush’s $450 Billion budget…oh, I long for those “wasteful” budget days!

I think Santorum WANTS us to get sidetracked onto social issues because this helps hide his LACK of executive experience and what HE WOULD DO with the economy which is something he has NO EXPERIENCE in!

Focus conservatives! The issue is the economy and JOBS! I think abortion, while important, is not THE policy that is detroying our nation right now. First, let’s get the right executive in there and then we can work to overturn R v W or at least return this AWFUL law back to the States.

It is obvious Tom Daschle you have NO HISTORICAL understanding of the Bible or history in general and the relevance that the “holy garment” played over the thousands of years from Adam to Abraham to Moses to the founding of Egypt.

So go ahead and mock away on something that is NOT EVEN RELEVANT to the election.

…I think abortion, while important, is not THE policy that is detroying our nation right now. First, let’s get the right executive in there…

g2825m on February 14, 2012 at 5:24 AM

Did you not see my 2:40 AM post?

The man admitted that he said, “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal”, simply to win an election.

And then to seal the deal he added, “and you will not see me wavering on that.” Now, here we are 5 years later and what has he done? Wavered, again, simply to win an election.

I don’t know and frankly I don’t care, how many abortions may have been performed in MA because of Romney’s official position during the time he was Governor. Just the fact that he is capable of using the murder of unborn children as a political tool is enough to convince me that Mitt Romney is not “the right executive” to put in there.

I get the sense sometimes from Romney’s critics that they think he was pro-choice his whole life and then cynically flipped to pro-life in 2005 once he had decided to run for president.

No to be a faithful Mormon, as he is, he had to be pro-life, but to be a faithful liberal, as he had to pretend, he had to throw away his faith, and he did it with gusto and convincingly…that is what is wrong with the man, if he could throw away a basic tenet of his faith, he can throw away anything and justify it…”I had to so I could win”.

Sorry, but his idea of “faith” is different from my idea, it’s not like he was being tortured, or threatened, he threw it away to gain power…and the LDS stood by and accepted it. If only one of theirs could gain power, what else would they sacrifice?
If Mitt could be president, what is he willing to sacrifice?

Just the fact that he is capable of using the murder of unborn children as a political tool is enough to convince me that Mitt Romney is not “the right executive” to put in there.

Flora Duh on February 14, 2012 at 7:17 AM

And that is the crux of the problem…what else is he willing to sacrifice to win…we already see he is willing to personally destroy someone with millions of dollars of ads aimed personally at him, and not “politically”…what else is he capable and feel “justified” to do?

And that is the crux of the problem…what else is he willing to sacrifice to win…we already see he is willing to personally destroy someone with millions of dollars of ads aimed personally at him, and not “politically”…what else is he capable and feel “justified” to do?

right2bright on February 14, 2012 at 7:37 AM

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with pointing out the dumb things your opponent has done that don’t follow conservative ideals. The Not-Romney crowd does it all day long both here and other places on the internet. Santorum himself does it by trying to point out Romney’s ties to “Romneycare”.

Don’t hate Romney because he has the money to broadcast what those poor choices were and Santorum can’t do it as effectively.

There is a reason that Santorum was the last and final Not-Romney to rise in the polls. The only reason he’s doing good is because of that and the impetuous Not-Romney crowd. He simply won the lottery of candidates who stayed under the radar long enough to be the last candidate standing against Romney.

“Rick Santorum could be the George McGovern of his party.” -John Samples

A libertarian cares about individual liberty and thus limited government. Those concerns lead to further commitments to free markets in economics, moral pluralism in culture, and realism and restraint in foreign policy. Government provides a legal order in which individuals pursue their vision of the good life. Politics is more about living together at peace than about making people virtuous.

By his own account, Santorum is anti-libertarian, describing the philosophy as “radical individualism” and a source of cultural decay. He opposes moral pluralism in favor of a society and government that recognizes and acts on Christian virtues. Santorum speaks of free markets, but his cultural commitments are bound to require limits on economic liberty. He also indulges in an economic populism that implies protectionist policies that favor the manufacturing sector. Like many Republicans these days, Santorum also seeks salvation for the Middle East through American military power.

[...]

Since the early 1990s, Christian conservatives have formed an ever larger portion of the GOP. In Santorum, they would have what they have long sought: a candidate embodying their commitments to a politics of faith. Neoconservatives would also have a candidate committed to transforming the world through foreign policy and military action. The Obama-Santorum race would be more than just a struggle for power between two men. It would be a referendum on ideas and policies that have dominated the GOP for more than decade.

I think he would drive more secular and independent voters away from the GOP ticket. A ten-point Republican loss in a year when economic weakness suggested a close race would be a political disaster not just for the candidate and his party but also for the ideas they embody. Rick Santorum could be the George McGovern of his party.

John Samples is director of the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute and the author of The Struggle to Limit Government.

Just exactly like the candidate: if you can’t respond to the actual argument, call anyone who disagrees with you “stupid” or lob millions of dollars in personal attack ads filled with outright lies and half-truths. You elders have no idea even now how offensive your self-perceived “brilliance” is. There really is nothing more off-putting than inrestrained arrogance unless it’s accompanied by breathtaking ignorance.

When did Reagan become pro-life? I’m assuming it was after he signed the pro-abortion act of 1967 in California. What pro-abortion legislation did Romney sign? It wasn’t in the healthcare bill that he signed.

Romney is a magical-underwearing , god of his own planet believing, two-faced, Media matters type of guy.

I absolutely adore the leftists that are shilling for him here.

tom daschle concerned on February 14, 2012 at 12:20 AM

Low IQ bigotry is not persuasive somehow. Who do you support so that I can avoid them? I don’t want to mistakenly put out a yard sign or vote for anyone that would attract you as a supporter. No offense or anything.

So you agree that embracing abortion, and throwing out your faith to win an election is not defensible…but pointing out opponents deficiencies is okay.
I could go along with that, I think it was “overkill” to run million of dollars of ads, and only one, that’s right, one ad being political, the rest being personal attack.
However, also agree with you that throwing your faith away, and embracing abortion to win an election is disgusting and I think both of us agree, not worthy of being president. It shows he has no sustainable values.

Low IQ bigotry is not persuasive somehow. Who do you support so that I can avoid them? I don’t want to mistakenly put out a yard sign or vote for anyone that would attract you as a supporter. No offense or anything.

Romney was probably like a lot of people who felt abortion was immoral, but didn’t want to necessarily campaign on changing the law. You can call that spineless, but you’re simply not going to get elected in New England as a pro-life culture warrior. If Republicans want to simply cede the Northeast to Democrats, they’ll insist on abortion litmus tests.

At the end of the day, I don’t care about labels. Harry Reid calls himself pro-life and Giuliani calls himself pro-choice. I would trust Giuliani a heck of a lot more on picking judges that will actually overturn Roe vs Wade over Harry Reid. The same goes with Romney.

Just getting a Republican, any Republican in the White House makes a BIG difference in getting the right judges in place.

There is a reason that Santorum was the last and final Not-Romney to rise in the polls. The only reason he’s doing good is because of that and the impetuous Not-Romney crowd. He simply won the lottery of candidates who stayed under the radar long enough to be the last candidate standing against Romney.

SauerKraut537 on February 14, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Did it ever occur to you that there might be a very important reason why the NotRomney crowd is larger than the Romney crowd?

Probably not. But regardless, if Romney can’t bring the NotRomney folks with him into the general, he is going to have a very hard time winning. So just a little hint: insulting the supporters of the other guy(s) doesn’t help your candidate.

For lack of a better context, Abortion, and infanticide, go back THOUSANDS of years. We So-cons know we can’t stop you. But, like you said, we don’t want to pay for it.

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Thousands of years…yup! And the Catholic church has been against it for that long. Unfortunately, we have come to behave counter to the the historic and (natural law) morals of western civilization (Judeo-Christian) and have turn the slaughter of innocent humans into a casual pastime, and in so doing, have corrupted our entire culture and ourselves. It won’t be unnoticed in the end, when we face the same higher authority that alone gave us our rights -nature’s God. Still we continue as if there is no day of reckoning.

Ronald Reagan had a similar shift in views on the abortion issue, according to a Los Angeles Times article headlined “Romney isn’t the first to flip on abortion.”

In 1967, then-California Gov. Reagan signed a liberal abortion law legalizing the procedure in cases where a woman’s mental as well as physical health was at risk.

The number of abortions in California soared after the bill was passed, and Reagan came to regret singing it, the Times reported. By the time he ran for president in 1980, Reagan had declared his support for a constitutional amendment prohibiting all abortions except to save the life of a woman.

Well so Reagan was a RINO with no core, who saw that coming?! Allah, in the name of integrity, would you care to add this to your piece as an addendum?

xxessw on February 13, 2012 at 11:42 PM

Example 14,556 of what happens when you try to sell a liberal Republican to a conservative base. Since you can’t sell Romney as a conservative, you have to try to destroy every other conservative to make Romney look better.

It’s not even enough to destroy the rest of the primary field. He and his supporters have to try to reach back a generation and more and destroy conservatives of the past, just to make Romney look less repulsive by comparison.

The only reason Romney is still in the race is that he’s spent all his efforts destroying all the competition. The reason he has to destroy all the competition is that nobody wants him!!

And now he has to try to destroy Reagan’s reputation, because it shows him up for the gun-grabbing socialized-medicine fraud that he is.

It is obvious Tom Daschle you have NO HISTORICAL understanding of the Bible or history in general and the relevance that the “holy garment” played over the thousands of years from Adam to Abraham to Moses to the founding of Egypt.

So go ahead and mock away on something that is NOT EVEN RELEVANT to the election.

g2825m on February 14, 2012 at 5:28 AM

I wondered if your remarkably steadfast loyalty to Romney was because you were Mormon. I guess this confirms it, since absolutely no one else believes that Adam to Abraham to Moses wore a “holy garment.”

How can you possibly accuse someone of having “NO HISTORICAL understanding of the Bible or history in general” when neither the Bible nor history in general has anything to say about Adam or Abraham or Moses wearing a “holy garment.”

Don’t try to confuse the issue by talking about priestly garments that only the priests, the sons of Aaron wore. They were not worn by Israelites in general, or even by the tribe of the Levites in general.

I wonder how many of the Mittdogs constantly posting on this site to promote Romney and destroy his competitors are primarily supporting Romney because he’s Mormon?

For those of us who are not Mormon, we’re more concerned about where he stands on the issues. Which is why Romney is not doing so well in this campaign. People just don’t want him.

Weren’t some of the founding fathers slave owners, in spite of the misgivings they might have had about the institution of slavery?

wasn’t it George Washington who freed all his slaves before he died?

If you never do anything, you never make mistakes, and if you never have to make decisions, you never have to compromise. So bloggers or talk radio hosts can keep their purity, but politicians, even honest ones (and, yes, I do believe Romney is an honest politician), can never be ideologically pure.

I find it interesting to see some commenters here disparaging Romney for the fact that he chose to become a governor of a blue state – aren’t we interested in changing people’s minds? don’t we want to see blue states turn red, or at least purple?

I used to be a democrat, I’m now an independent. I voted straight Republican in 2008 and 2010. Thanks to people like me we have a Republican governor, as well as Republican state house and senate here in Pennsylvania. PEOPLE DO CHANGE THEIR MIND SOMETIME! Are people like me considered flif-floppers?!

I will vote for anybody against Barack Obama, but I believe Romney is the best of the four currently running, not just to win but to govern, and I find the hatred for him here and on other blogs quite discouraging.